ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Work appraisal (282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Work appraisal
Total judgments found: 137

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >



  • Judgment 3026


    111th Session, 2011
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Failure on the part of the Organisation to give the complainant a fair opportunity to demonstrate improvement prior to deciding not to renew his fixed-term contract for unsatisfactory performance.
    "It must be assumed that until 2006 the complainant's work was satisfactory as his contract was renewed from time to time, albeit that he was not subject to performance appraisal during the period he was employed on temporary assistance contracts."

    Keywords:

    appointment; complainant; contract; performance report; period; satisfactory service; short-term; work appraisal;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "An opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur."

    Keywords:

    notice; organisation's duties; performance report; reasonable time; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3006


    111th Session, 2011
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    Assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement. It is usual to refer to decisions or recommendations involving a value judgement as 'discretionary', signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue and, if the issue involves a comparison with other persons, they may also hold different views on their comparative rating. The nature of a value judgement means that point-to-point comparisons are not necessarily decisive. Moreover, because of the nature of a value judgement, the grounds on which a decision involving a judgement of that kind may be reviewed are limited to those applicable to discretionary decisions. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere if 'the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority' (see Judgment 2834, under 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; performance report; procedural flaw; promotion; rating; work appraisal;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The principle of equality requires that all candidates in a given year be assessed by reference to staff reports for the same period. It is clear from Judgment 2221 that the principle also requires that if the 'merits' of a candidate for promotion are subsequently upgraded, the question of promotion must be considered on the basis of what would have happened if the upgraded marking had been considered previously."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2221

    Keywords:

    candidate; equal treatment; performance report; promotion; rating; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2991


    110th Session, 2011
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person's work carried out in compliance with previously established rules (see, for example, Judgments 1911, under 6, and 2414, under 23)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1911, 2414

    Keywords:

    contract; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; formal requirements; grounds; international civil service principles; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;



  • Judgment 2982


    110th Session, 2011
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    Replacement of a staff member in circumstances constituting harassment.
    "The Tribunal has consistently held [...] that an organisation 'cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member's unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance' (see Judgment 2916, under 4). It is also well established that an organisation 'owes it to its employees, especially probationers, to guide them in the performance of their duties and to warn them in specific terms if they are not giving satisfaction and are in risk of dismissal' (see Judgment 2732, under 16)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2732, 2916

    Keywords:

    decision; organisation's duties; probationary period; staff assessment; staff regulations and rules; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2930


    109th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "In his internal appeal the complainant claimed in particular that he had been the victim of bullying on the part of his director, who was also his reporting officer. [...] The Internal Appeals Committee [...] found that the inaccuracies it identified [in the staff report] did not, individually, constitute an 'abuse of authority' and concluded that the 'report [did] not reveal any flaws which would justify its complete retraction'. This approach involved an error of law. It was not sufficient to consider in relation to each inaccuracy whether it, standing alone, was an abuse of authority. Rather, it was necessary to consider whether, in the light of the evidence, including the various inaccuracies which it identified, the report as a whole was the result of prejudice on the part of the reporting officer."

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; evidence; formal flaw; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; performance report; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2917


    109th Session, 2010
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7(d)

    Extract:

    "By twice giving the complainant a rating [- rating 0 -] that is not envisaged in the [relevant texts], the supervisor breached the rules applicable to the process of assessing a staff member's performance. Furthermore, this kind of rating is likely to leave the staff member concerned feeling that his competencies or performance in the areas assessed are so substandard that they do not even merit an assessment on the part of his supervisor. Such conduct may be expected to foster in the staff member a deep sense of personal inadequacy. As such a rating has no basis in law and is contrary to the rules of conduct applicable to the personal relations between international organisations and their staff, it cannot be upheld."

    Keywords:

    organisation's duties; performance report; rating; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The signing of a document with such important implications for the future career of a staff member is not a mere formality, and insistence on absolute compliance with this rule cannot be dismissed as an unduly formalistic approach. The provision requiring that the appraisal form be signed not only by the direct supervisor of the staff member concerned but also by other persons [...] is designed to guarantee oversight, at least prima facie, of the objectivity of the report. The purpose of such a rule is to ensure that responsibilities are shared and that the staff member who is being appraised is shielded from a biased assessment by a supervisor, who should not be the only person issuing an opinion on the staff member's skills and performance."

    Keywords:

    bias; formal flaw; formal requirements; organisation's duties; performance report; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2916


    109th Session, 2010
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[W]here the ground for non-renewal is unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation concerned [...]. However, an organisation may not in good faith end someone's appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member's unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1262, 1583, 2414

    Keywords:

    case law; contract; discretion; fixed-term; good faith; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; staff regulations and rules; tribunal; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "[P]erformance appraisal procedures must be 'both transparent and adversarial'. That is unlikely to be the case where the prescribed procedures are not observed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; case law; due process; organisation's duties; performance report; procedural flaw; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2836


    107th Session, 2009
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "[T]he procedures used to assess the performance of international civil servants must be both transparent and adversarial."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; official; organisation's duties; work appraisal;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainant's appointment was not confirmed at the end of her probationary period. She submits that the assessment of her work was tainted with several flaws. She criticises her responsible chief for having taken into account the opinions expressed on her work by other officials in the department.
    "The Tribunal considers that it is not per se unlawful for supervisors who have to assess an official's performance and recommend whether or not to confirm his/her appointment to ask colleagues of the person in question how they rate his/her work, as a means of helping them to form their own judgements. A supervisor must of course exercise the requisite caution and discernment when taking such opinions into account, but there is nothing in the submissions to suggest that this requirement was not satisfied in this case."

    Keywords:

    condition; contract; flaw; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; probationary period; recommendation; supervisor; work appraisal;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "[I]t is not necessarily contradictory for performance to be rated differently from one reporting period to the next (see, for example, Judgment 2162, under 3)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2162

    Keywords:

    difference; official; performance report; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2788


    106th Session, 2009
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "[The] purpose [of probation] is to provide an organisation with an opportunity to assess an individual's suitability for a position. In the course of making this assessment, an organisation must establish clear objectives against which performance will be assessed, provide the necessary guidance for the performance of the duties, identify in a timely fashion the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance so that remedial steps may be taken, and give a specific warning that the continued employment is in jeopardy (see Judgment 2529, under 15)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2529

    Keywords:

    candidate; criteria; definition; fitness for international civil service; organisation; organisation's duties; post; probationary period; purpose; qualifications; refusal; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2724


    105th Session, 2008
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The Reports Board, which is set up by the Director-General and establishes its own procedure, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10.3 of the Staff Regulations, cannot be regarded as either an internal appeals body or a judicial body. Where an official has had the opportunity to state his or her point of view before the Board and to comment on the relevant supervisors' assessments of his or her performance and conduct, the adversarial principle can reasonably be deemed to have been observed."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 10.3 of the Staff Regulations of the ILO

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; advisory body; conduct; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2558


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3(b)

    Extract:

    The complainant was dismissed at the end of the extension of her probationary period. She criticises the way her probation was conducted. The Tribunal considers that her criticism "is not entirely unfounded. At the time she took up her duties, her predecessor had been retired for five months and staff changes continued among officials who should have been involved in training and supervising her and who were hence responsible for assessing her performance. It is clear, therefore, that during her probationary period the complainant did not enjoy the best assistance and supervision.
    However regrettable these circumstances may be, they are not such as to invalidate either the decision to extend the complainant's probationary period beyond the end of 2002 or the decision to dismiss her at the end of the extension."

    Keywords:

    appointment; decision; extension of contract; flaw; organisation's duties; probationary period; retirement; supervisor; termination of employment; training; vacancy; work appraisal;

    Consideration 4(a)

    Extract:

    According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "The defendant has not shown that the Principal Director of Personnel was competent or held a delegation of authority; it merely acknowledges in its reply 'that there is no decision signed by the President extending the complainant's probationary period'. It argues that this does not invalidate the decision to extend the probationary period in view of the absence of any obvious error in the assessment of the complainant's performance. This argument is surprising insofar as it clearly arises from a confusion between the formal requirements and the substantive requirements of an administrative decision. Whether a decision is justified or not in substance, whoever takes the decision must in all cases make sure beforehand that he has the power to do so and, if not, refer the matter to the competent authority for a decision."

    Keywords:

    competence; decision; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; formal flaw; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mistaken conclusion; organisation; organisation's duties; probationary period; reply; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2540


    101st Session, 2006
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 30

    Extract:

    "It was said in Judgment 442 that:
    As a rule an official's comments on his subordinates do not give them any right to compensation; otherwise supervisors would express only guarded opinions about their subordinates, and that would be harmful to the organisation's efficiency. The most that can be said is that when a supervisor expresses an opinion which he knows to be untrue for a purely malicious purpose he, or the organisation, will be liable.
    To that should be added the rider that the duty to act in good faith and, also, the duty to respect the dignity of a subordinate require that the subordinate be given an opportunity to answer any criticism made and that his or her answers or explanations be fairly considered."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    allowance; consequence; difference; equity; general principle; good faith; injury; liability; mistake of fact; organisation; organisation's duties; purpose; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; supervisor; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2529


    101st Session, 2006
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's case law is voluminous and consistent to the effect that an organisation owes it to its employees, especially probationers, to guide them in the performance of their duties and to warn them in specific terms if they are not giving satisfaction and are in risk of dismissal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1212, 1386, 2170, 2414

    Keywords:

    case law; duty to inform; organisation's duties; probationary period; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2507


    100th Session, 2006
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "Criticism of a subordinate's performance and behaviour, even in inappropriately strong language, does not, of itself, evidence harassment or prejudice. Certainly, that is so where [...] the performance and behaviour in question are confirmed by other senior and responsible officials. That being so, and there being no other evidence to support the complainant's claims, the allegations of harassment and prejudice must be rejected."

    Keywords:

    bias; conduct; different appraisals; evidence; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; performance report; respect for dignity; supervisor; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2468


    99th Session, 2005
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The complainant's appointment was terminated for unsatisfactory services. "The defendant is not wrong to point out that, except in a case of manifest error, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of a staff member's services for that of the competent bodies of an international organisation. Nevertheless, such an assessment must be made in full knowledge of the facts, and the considerations on which it is based must be accurate and properly established. The Tribunal, which pays considerable attention to these issues in the case of complaints concerning dismissal at the end of a probationary period or the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance, must be even more vigilant where an organisation terminates the appointment of a staff member holding a contract without limit of time, which in principle should secure him against any risk of job loss or insecurity. This applies particularly in the present case, since the staff member concerned by the termination for unsatisfactory services received on the whole satisfactory or even excellent appraisals over a period of 15 years."

    Keywords:

    complaint; condition; contract; different appraisals; fixed-term; grounds; judicial review; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; period; permanent appointment; probationary period; satisfactory service; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    "The procedures used to assess the performance of international civil servants must be both transparent and adversarial."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; official; organisation's duties; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2427


    99th Session, 2005
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "According to the case law [...], the Tribunal is competent to review the lawfulness of any decision by the Director-General to terminate a staff member's probation. In particular, it may determine whether that decision is based on errors of fact or law, or whether essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or whether clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts, or, lastly, whether there has been an abuse of authority. The Tribunal may not, however, replace with its own the executive head's opinion of a staff member's performance, conduct or fitness for international service (see Judgment 318, considerations).
    Other cases mention, as further grounds on which the Tribunal will review such decisions, a formal or procedural flaw, or lack of due process (see, for example, Judgments 13, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183 and 1246) which, it has been noted, must be substantial to invalidate an end-of-probation termination decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 13, 318, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183, 1246

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; case law; competence of tribunal; conduct; contract; decision; decision quashed; disregard of essential fact; evidence; executive head; fitness for international civil service; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; probationary period; procedural flaw; termination of employment; tribunal; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2414


    98th Session, 2005
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 2170 the Tribunal described the requirement of Staff Rule 12.1.5 that an annual performance report be established prior to the scheduled date of a salary increment as 'a formal one' which had to be complied with. It is important to explain why that was so. A staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service so that steps can be taken to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed. These are fundamental aspects of the duty of an international organisation to act in good faith towards its staff members and to respect their dignity. That is why it was said in Judgment 2170 that an organisation must 'conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that [its rules] will be followed'."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 12.1.5 of the ITU
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170

    Keywords:

    criteria; due process; duty to inform; good faith; increase; increment; interpretation; organisation's duties; output; patere legem; performance evaluation; performance report; respect for dignity; salary; staff regulations and rules; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    "The fundamental considerations which lead to the conclusion that an organisation must comply with the rules which it has established also dictate the conclusion that it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member's unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance." That is true for salary increments as well as for decisions not to convert or renew a contract.

    Keywords:

    contract; decision; due process; fixed-term; grounds; increase; increment; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; permanent appointment; salary; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2373


    97th Session, 2004
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant's contract was not renewed. He claims that his new supervisor was prejudiced against him. "While it is clear that the complainant's new supervisor did not have the same high view of his qualities as did [his previous supervisor], that is a long way from demonstrating that there has been an abuse of authority."

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; bias; contract; lack of evidence; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; supervisor; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2356


    97th Session, 2004
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "[T]he payment of [a] special post allowance [...] is meant to financially reward a staff member for carrying out duties of a higher-level post, and the complainant is mistaken when she equates the payment with a positive assessment of her work."

    Keywords:

    definition; grade; official; payment; post; purpose; satisfactory service; special post allowance; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2337


    97th Session, 2004
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The case law cited [by the complainant] refers to the situation of a staff member who, failing any indication to the contrary, can rely on the continuation of his contractual relations (either not terminated or renewed), since according to the rules of good faith the Organization should warn the staff member if it considers his performance unsatisfactory in order to give him a chance to improve. The situation is different if an organisation [...] restricts the number of fixed term contracts a staff member may be given and lays down specific conditions for the award of an indefinite contract. In this case, the staff member cannot sit back and wait for his contract to be turned into an indefinite contract, since he will be expected to meet stricter requirements. Of course, the Organization is not on that account relieved of its duty of care towards the staff member, and, in accordance with the rules of good faith, it must warn him either if it is convinced that he is simply incapable of performing the duties attached to an indefinite contract, or if it believes that, in order to perform them the staff member must improve the quality of his work still further. This is an obligation the Organization must fulfil particularly in the context of periodic performance appraisals."

    Keywords:

    case law; condition; contract; duty to inform; fixed-term; good faith; legitimate expectation; organisation's duties; performance report; permanent appointment; satisfactory service; successive contracts; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >


 
Last updated: 03.12.2021 ^ top